The Charlotte Democrat., 1887-12-23
Digest of N. C. Suprame Court Decisions.
Fail Term, 1887.
TReported for the Raleigh Observer

Fall Term, 1887.
IReported for the Raleigh Observerl
Click va. Western North Carolina Rail-
road.-Held. That the summary proceed
N. G. railroad and sections 1912 l949
by the construction of the roadbed on
their land is neither special proceeding
nor a civil action, and that jurisdiction is
given thereof to the Superior Court.
That il begun before the clerk, he acts
for the court; if in term time the judge
appoints the commissioners.
That had there been any irregularity in
the case, the agreement to proceed filed
was q waiver.
Carrollv, Hodges.-Held, A deposition
will not be rejected on objection first
made after trial has begun because of ir-
regularity in taking the same if the object
ing party had notice, aud the deposition
was on file long enough before the trial TO
enable him to present his objection. OBJ
iec.ions to the competency of questions
and ans wers should be made in writing
before the trial, before the judge or clerk
(Code section 1861. Unless such objec-
tions is made in apt time, the statute
makes the deposition evidence.
In this case the depositions were on file
two months without objection, and that is
held to be ample time within which objec
tions could be made.
Braden vs.. McLaurin.-Wbere in a trial
of proceeding for partition between CO.
tenants the defendant in possession claim
ing adversely under a warrantee deed, the
defendant being witness. was asked "if
any suit was brought the peti toner's offered
him, if they recovered, to let him keep
the lands and they to get whatever he re-
covered on the warranty, and if this was
verbally agreed to by him." To which
he answered There was some such pro-
position aud be had expressed his willing
ness to accept it,"
Held, That the above question aud au-
swer were not open to obligation aud no
harm could ensue to the defendant from
the admissiou OF the evidence.
Held, That adverse possession Tor twen-
ty years at least is necessary to defeat the
estate OF cotenant in common.
Caudle w Fallen.-Plaintiff had judg-
ment against Que Mrs Ingram which was
docketed in the Superior Cour,. Mrs In
gram dying her administrator paid into
the clerks office 800 ON that judgmsnt.
Plaintiff sold the Judgment to defendant
for $25, and upon discovering that the $50
had been paid into the clerks office
brought this action against defendant to
recover S65, alleged damages, on the
ground than defendant by false aud fraud
ulent' representations as to the value of the
judgment had obtained it's transfer by
trick and oontriyance.
The jury found that defendant did not
make the false represent atious alleged and
Plaintiff apps aled aud assigned as grounds
OF error a general exception. to the judges
charge.
Held, That the judgment being of
record and the money to be circulated on
it having been paid into the clerks office
the plaintiff 10 law was fixed with kuowl-
edge of the facts. There was no erroneous
proposition of law in the charge.
general exception 10 the charge OF the
judge Twill not do"
Hutchins vs Hodges. The plaintiff had
rented to defendant land, agreeing to fur
nish guano, for one-fourth the tobacco
crop. After the crop was of, plaintiff en-
tered and sowed grain on the land. De-
feudant sold the tobacco aud did not pay
the rent,a plaintiff brought his action to
recover $45 due as rent. Defendant plead
ed that the contract was Tor two years,
and that be was damaged by not being al
lowed to retain the land for two years,
but introduced no evidence as To his dam
ages.
Held, That rent was due at the end of
the first year.
Held, That plaintiffs entry raised the
question OF how much defendant was dam
aged thereby, and defendant by intro
ducing no evidence showing damage,
proved none: and plaintiff was therefore
entitled to recover the full amount of the
rent without abatement.
State vs.. John F. Divine. TIE delen-
daut, superintendent of the w. e. & A. K.
R., is prosecuted criminally under sections
2,327-2,330, chapter 10, volume 2 of the
Code, making it misdemeanor and pro-
viding that the President and Superin-
teudent of the company as we'll as the
engineer and conductor of the train may
be indicted, Whenever any stock is killed
by any railroad train in the counties OF
Columbus, Sc, &c; provided that the in.
dictable parties do not refer the question
of damages for killing the stock therein
provided for and pay the damages assessed.
At the trial the jury found special ver-
dict covering the fact of the killing and
that the railroad company refused to refer
the damages according to the statute,
that the defendant was not on the train
and in no way connected with the killing.
The verdic. did not conclude that the de-
fendant "ls or is not guilty. as the opinion
of the court may be on the facts found.
Held, that the jury must pass on the
guilt of the accused aud the special ver-
dict not finding that the defendant was or
was not guilty as the opinion of the court
might be, was no verdict at all, and the
alleged verdict must be set aside, aud
there must BE- further proceedings below.
Held, that the statute, since it makes
an act divested of any peculiar circum-
stances indictable only in particular couu-
ties, is lacking in those essential elements
of equality aud uniformity which are fun.
damental conditions of all just and consti-
fu, l1nislofinn